|
Now begins an interrogation of Meykandar of a profound kind in which
Arunandi takes to task Meykandar's central notion 'an-n-iyaminmai' or absence
of Otherness as the limiting condition of Being-in the-World of the anmas
that he outlined in his magnificent Civajnana BOtham(henceforth C.B) and
which is said to have been bestowed by BEING itself and no other. This
is also the notion of ParaMukti, the absolute liberation that provides
the meaning for Existence, that for which existence is. The interrogation
and the dialectics brings out the impossibility of making sense of this
notion of Paramukti within absolute hetereology that always maintains an
alienness, an Other. Having brought out the numerous impasses and hence
nihilism of a kind as the only possibility, he makes it come out from the
mouth of Meykandar the solutions to these dillemmas that hark back to the
words of Appar and Thirunjaanasambanthar.
¯«ò £'Ò´³™ ±Ì×ò °'-îî
kaNNakan nyaalaththuk kathiravan thaanena
Oh Meydanda Theva, who hast come down like the brilliant sun that
dispels the DARKNESS of the wide world, and residing in VeNNai Nallur,
has established me in everlasting bliss by destroying my inclinations towards
the Dark, I am desirous of posing some (fundamental metaphysical) questions
(in the light of what you have already said)
Ÿ´°ò ÀÒò þœ'± µ'Æò
chuththan amalan chOthi n-aayakan
þ×ì òì«Ñ´±ò ØÆ'º Áòé'Ë¿
vERu n-inRuNarththin viyaapaka minRaayp
Now in order to avoid such difficulties, if it is said that Thou standeth as an Other and instructs the creatures, then that would mean that Thou art not universally pervasive and immanent. And furthermore it would also mean Being-absolutely-one- with- Thee and hence the SAME as Thee will be impossible for me. ƒÏÒ¹ ²ÿÑ ƒÆÀ'îò '-ÒñÅ
irun-ilan- thIn-Ir iyamaanan kaalenum
And furthermore as a Reality totally transcendent and above, Being-one-with-the-Physical- World of Fire, Air, Water, Earth and Space and agitating them as a whole (to instruct me) does not anymore belong to Thee. So explain to me whether Thou art one-with-me or not without loosing patience that is unbecoming. êÆ'³ ˜ê€î º™× º™×™
Now if Thou repliest that I have posed these questions out of ignorance and that the world process is pedagogical in nature in which through the intermediaries of a GURU, I in fact instruct each according to his own cognitive maturity or developmental attainment, we are not free of problems. For I am absolutely certain that even instructed, if I am not sufficiently matured for it, I will not be able to understand it at all. The instructions will be completely beyond my grasp. Now if a readiness for comprehension is required as a precondition, then Thy instructions become redundant. º™×Å °î'í ºÆò ÿ ×Íþî
pakkuvam athanaaR payan n-I varinE
ÃÅÀÒ¤ œ¥Å ® Ä¿½ ƒã€ÀÇÖ ÿ
Now if Thou art not only the Wholly Other (but also involved in the pedagogical processes), and standeth as the Absolutely Pure, who or what is instructed by Thee? For the three fold malas ( the ANavam, kanmam and maayeeyam) are insentient (and hence incapable of learning); the finite self being a metaphysical reality does not age or remain youthful (i.e. does experience the historical processes of growth and decay). And since Thou art already the Absolutely Pure, it cannot also be as a way of realizing Thyself. …«Ñ-×à ÿ™´€° ‹±-Ƴ ‡ïþî
uNarvezu n-Ikkaththai Othiyethu eninE
'¯º'Ñ Æ'Ñ-'Ö 'ª¥'™'Ö ‡ñÅ
kaaNpaar yaarkol kaattaakkaal enum
(Meykandar replies:) You raise all these questions only because you are ignorant of what has already been articulated (by Appar wherein he says:) You cannot SEE anything unless SHOWN as such by BEING. Furthermore you are also ignorant of the reply given by Thirujnaanasambanthar when the Pandian king queried him viz. BEING discloses to each according to his own merits in a manner befitting his hermeneutic capabilities and because of which the modes of disclosures are really infinite, uncountable. COMMENTARY: Part 1: Absolute hetereology and consequent Nihilism 1. The metaphysical questions Arunandi raises are profound and touch upon the great controversy that has divided the Indian philosophers for more than two millenniums and which arose a the central question underlying the burst of Bakti movement in the Tamil country from the 5th cent. onwards and in the course of which the essentially nihilistic Buddhism, Jainism and Vedanta were overcome. As already outlined by Meykandar, Existence is Being-in-the-World that holds the possibility of Being-One-With-the-World (BWW) i.e. atheistic and Being-One-With-BEING (BWB) i.e. theistic. It is also asserted that there is a GROWTH that the anmas undergo and that this growth is obtained by a process in which the Phenomenological Being of the anmas is BACKGROUNDED and overcome and simultaneously the presence of BEING foregrounded and firmly installed i.e. a transformation from a state of {P-Being~(BEING)} into {BEING~(P-Being)}. Now if the former is the state of Being that obtains for all psychic entities that they have to overcome, a state of finitude and IGNORANCE, then it becomes immensely puzzling for the penetrating intellect of Arunandi, an adroit scholar of vast scholarship and who entered into a vehement controversy with young Meykandar himself. If {P-Being~(BEING)} means the state of finitude, of IGNORANCE because of the presence of MALAM, a metaphysical DARKNESS, Arunandi is puzzled over the co-presence of both BEING and MALAM in the anmas. For MALAM, as the ANTIBEING, that which breeds DARKNESS, is opposed to BEING that which is pure RADIANCE. How can the two, as such, be simultaneously present in one and the same entity? How can, to speak metaphorically here, LIGHT and DARKNESS be simultaneously present in the anmas ? 2. Now attention shifts to the pedagogical processes that are brought
in to explain the supplanting of the P-Being of the psychic entities and
implanting the presence BEING itself in its place.
3. Now if the presence of BEING as totally Other is denied and stated
that BEING stands one-with as the anma itself (€×þÆ °'þîÆ'Ë, C.B Sut.2,avaiyE
thAnEyAi) another dilemma emerges. The presence of finitude and along with
it the DARKNESS of Ignorance is an empirical truth. But then it becomes
a puzzle to note that this is so DESPITE THE ONENESS of BEING. And therefore
such descriptions as the Absolutely Pure, the Radiant and so forth become
incomprehensible. How is human understanding finite and
4. If the pedagogical are related to historical and cosmological, i.e. something that happens in the historical involvement of the psychic entities, the problem is not over. For BEING is always trans-historical, uninvolved in the enormous manipulations of the elements of Earth, Water, Fire, Space and Wind and in the existential struggles of the anmas. As the Totally Other, Being remains forever the Absolutely Beyond for the anmas. 5. These dilemmas lead to an impasse and as a result of which a kind
of nihilism emerges. The pedagogical understood as instructional makes
the BEING totally Other hierarchically Above and Totally Beyond and this
will make the neutralization of DIFFERENCE impossible and the attainment
PARAMUKTI totally beyond the reach of the anmas. And in order to overcome
this nihilism, attention now shifts to a reconsideration of the meaning
of the pedagogical itself and in connection with which Arunandi introduces
two technical terms related each other, viz. pakkuvam and paruvam. While
'pakkuvam' means a special stage of readiness that have signs of its own
(kuRi), 'paruvam' like the seasons of the year, are natural processes of
change and decay. The pedagogical involves not instructions per se but
rather disclosures or revelations of a kind. The special individuals who
are 'ripe' enough for such disclosures are singled out, and BEING discloses
truths only to such individuals. The pedagogical as such do not exist but
only special revelations, the messianic disclosures. While this has the
merit of avoiding the total aloofness of BEING, but creates problems of
its own. For when someone is not "ready" in this sense, even disclosed,
the "messages will be simply BEYOND the comprehension of the individuals.
Also requiring as a precondition such a special status of being ripe and
ready, makes the presence of BEING itself irrelevant and useless. And if
such profound and, we may add here, metaphysical disclosures are said to
be dispensed only when somehow there is a state of readiness, then becoming
ready in this way, is made totally beyond the historical processes of growth
and decay, conflict and resolution. The state of being 'ready' becomes
mystical and magical, something beyond the natural. And this means there
will be no one resembling BEING, reflecting BEING in this world. In other
words the possibility of someone becoming a civanjaani, one who radiates
the presence of BEING in his personality, is denied here. If disclosures
are simply selective violations and interference, a bursting forth into
the understanding of some selected individuals, the gradual unfolding of
the presence of BEING in the
6. Now begins another line of inquiry in the face of this impasse. The
pedagogical is now interpreted in terms of 'paruvam nikazththal' i.e. bring
about maturation through a sequence of stages in a progressive manner.
There are the maturational processes in which the anmas begin to radiate
more and more of the presence of BEING so that there are different 'paruvams'
of developmental stages, like in the biological.
This bring us to the final and the most likely candidate: the understanding itself and the hermeneutical meaning of the pedagogical. The phrase 'uNarvezu niikkam' indicates that the pedagogical removes something from the understanding itself and because of which results developmental changes. The understanding is 'purified' and because of it, it is better, more developed and so forth. But the sharp intellect of Arunandi notes a problem here too. If BEING absolves all the prejudices finitising the understanding so that it is absolutely PURE without any obscurants that would distort and thwart the perceptions, then it makes the understanding of BEING as iNaiyili, an absolutely indivisible UNITARY WHOLE, problematic. BEING involved in the removable of the obscurants of human understanding that configure the understanding itself as finite, impure, unsaturated, imperfect, incomplete etc cannot be ONE, for it requires splitting into a variety of guises each suitable to a specific task of purification. Is BEING absolutely UNITARY or not? is the question that perplexes Arunandi now. 7. Now can BEING instruct itself as a way of REALIZING ITSELF and because of which emerges the pedagogical in the world? is the question that remains to be taken up, having eliminated all other possible candidates. But the question: nI ninmalan, paruvam nikazththiyathu yArkkO? itself contains the answer : that which is already absolutely Pure , free of the defiling MALAM, the obscurants, has no necessity to instruct Itself , no matter how; it has to be for something else while simultaneously itself not learning anything at all. 8. Now emerges another possibility that is not only nihilistic but possibly Atheistic. For the presence of the instructional is not denied but only the invocation of the involvement of BEING itself in it and hence the irrelevancy of BEING for the pedagogical. For it is considered now that understanding can move from itself to itself and in that the obscurants removed. This can be either by the efforts the self itself in its Being-in-the World or the self- removal of the obscurants on their own accord. The understanding can be taken to be PROJECTIVE, projecting unto itself from within itself states of Being as its own innermost possibilities and move by itself to BE what it projects for itself. If this is the case and the pedagogical is essentially this, then BEING as such becomes irrelevant, the analysis of Being of the self itself being sufficient. Part 2: Overcoming Nihilism 1) We have come to the end of an exposition of the essential content of the first set of metaphysical QUESTIONS the adroit Arunandi raises more to highlight and prepare the ground for the final statement that he makes come out from the mouth of his master himself. The kind of dialectics that he enters into may be the kind of dialectics that transpired in his time in the circle of Meykandar. An overview of all these discourses quite clearly indicate that what is involved is a species of deconstruction that we shall call disconstruction, the unsettling the settled and through that introducing a trauma in the mind of the philosophers who assert positively this and that and remain complacent with an air of finality in the truth of their utterance. This confidence and complacency is that which is undermined while simultaneously disclosing the impasses that assails any philosophical explanations about the problem he begins with : How is BEING which is Radiance itself can be co-present with Darkness in the understanding of the psychic entities? Any explanation within Alterity, the primordial condition of discourse and ethics, cannot explain the meaning of the pedagogical that ultimately leads to ParaMukti, a condition of Nonalienness with BEING. But disconstruction is not simply deconstruction , that which unsettles and through that allows continuos translatability, substitutability , uninterrupted flow , nondirectional disemmination and so forth. Disconstruction as cangkaaram, does not simply unsettle; it, in doing that, clears the ground for the emergence of another that till now remains concealed, covered-up, hid behind a veil, a curtain. In other words, as Meykandar articulates it, it is antham-aathi, an act of terminating one in order to initiate another, episodizing so that present becomes the past and future becomes the present. 2) The impasses lead to undecidability about the presence and involvement
of BEING and at times marginalising it so that it becomes supremely IRRELEVANT
even if it is there somewhere. This irrelevancy of BEING and hence anything
absolutistic, permanent with unchanging essences is the kind of NIHILISM
that emerges as the possibility with the line of metaphysical thinking
underlying the discourses we have considered so far. The understanding
of pedagogical as instructional that brings along with it absolute hetereology,
is the root cause of all these impasses. For it binds thinking to Alterity,
Separation, the face-to-face as ultimate, alienation, the nondissolubiltiy
of Other and the impossibility of making sense of the important notion
of ParaMukti as that for which existence is , remains the possibility of
all creatures and which can be bestowed by BEING alone. The metaphysics
of indissoluble discourse cannot lend itself for understanding the notion
of ParaMukti which is already there even before any discourse along with
the presence of BEING. What we need is a metaphysics that allows the overcoming
of speech and hence, discourse and simultaneously the reaching the primordial
situation that is prelinguistical. The true metaphysics is that which reaches
the prelinguistical and the postlinguistical ground and of which such an
enterprise is called meta-physical, the going beyond the physis , that
which stands as there i.e. por-uL. ParaMukti also demands, as that which
hovers in front as the possibility for all, as something already inscribed,
the transcending of language and hence going beyond discourse, towards
a communicative situation that is at the same time non-linguistic i.e.
cuththa mOnam , Deep Silence. Such a possibility is contained within a
notion of pedagogy that was first articulated by Appar and Jnaanasambanthar
and at the end of the impasses, the solution offered by them is made to
be repeated by Meykandar as a way overcoming the nihilism that surfaced
as the only possibility within absolute hetereology. The disconstruction
clears the ground for the emergence of the TRUTH and simultaneously true
metaphysics, Metaphysica Universalis.
With this the nihilism is totally overcome. The M-BEING stands as the
ABSOLUTE, which in its phenomenal presence throws the anmas into an hetereology,
forcing to have a FAITH and consider the BEING-IN-ITSELF as the Wholly
Other, the Impossible , forever the Beyond and so forth. But when the phenomenality
of Being-in-the-World is overcome, where everything is transcended hermeneutically,
where every impulse is evaporated in the burning grounds of Tillai so that
intentionality and along with it referentiallity, temporality and so forth
cease to emerge, in the SEEING WITHOUT SEEING, the ABSOLUTE BEING itself
is seen bringing to a FINAL CLOSURE the phenomenal existence itself.
|
This page is created and is maintain by Suba. Copyright Suba - 26/11/1998 |